Copyright & associated rights transactions and management

Copyright recognises the skill and labour and the ‘creative stamp’ expended by an author in creating a work. Copyright is, put simply, a right to copy a work (the owner may also restrict acts other than copying). The law is set out mainly in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), which took effect from 1 August 1989. Transitional provisions apply to pre-existing works.

In practice, one work tends to give rise to multiple copyrights. When considering copyright works, rights distinct from copyright, eg design rights, should also be considered as they may also apply to creative works. For an introduction to the law of copyright, see Practice Note: Introduction to copyright and associated rights.

Tracking developments in copyright law and practice

Copyright law has the sizeable task of responding to changes brought about by businesses and consumers operating in a digital age. As well as more organic legal developments, new technologies, the internet and post-IP completion day considerations provide an inexhaustible supply of challenges for those who do business in the UK and the rest of the world. To keep up with

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

The ghost of Brexit past—a road to nowhere?

EU Law analysis: The Court of Justice has held that common law passing off rights based on use of a trade mark in the UK could not continue to be used as a valid basis of opposition to an EU trade mark application, owing to the departure of the UK from the EU, in a decision which has finally exorcises the 'ghost of Brexit past' and has wider implications for trade mark practice before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). Written by Lee Curtis, partner and chartered trade mark attorney at HGF Limited.

Date for assessing bad faith claims against UK comparable (Brexit) trade marks (Parabolica v Tesla)

IP analysis: On 23 February 2026, the High Court allowed Parabolica Ltd's appeal and clarified the correct date for assessing bad faith under section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) where a UK trade mark application derives from a pending EU application under Article 59(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU. The central issue in this case was whether the bad faith ground should be assessed by reference to the EU filing date, the EU priority date or the subsequent UK filing date. The court held that the EU filing date is the relevant date for assessing bad faith, thereby resolving the uncertainty surrounding this issue and establishing that the Hearing Officer had erred in relying on the UK filing date. Written by Alice Martins, registered trade mark attorney, and Helene Whelbourn, legal director, at Lee & Thompson LLP.

IP weekly highlights—5 March 2026

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, design rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, and patents, as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

Pear Pressure—joint tortfeasorship for company secretaries clarified (Wang Zeng v Bing Bing)

IP analysis: This case concerns competing fruiterers, and two exotic varieties of pears trade marked ‘Mountain Pear’ and ‘Yu Lu Frangrant Pear’. The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court found in favour of the trade mark proprietor, Wang Zeng International Ltd (WZI), against Bing Bing Foods Ltd and its sole director Mr Bingtao Wang, who admitted using identical marks for identical goods without consent. The defendants claimed that the marks were merely descriptive pear variety names and should be declared invalid. The court dismissed the defendants' wide-ranging but lightly-argued invalidity counterclaims under sections 3(1)(b), (c), and (d), section 46(1)(c), and section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), finding that the marks were validly registered. The claimant was entitled to a declaration of infringement and injunctive relief against Bing Bing and Mr Bingtao Wang, who was found jointly liable, while the claim against the company secretary Mr Sohi was dismissed. Written by Sam Fisher, associate at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP.